Assassins in JFK assassination named in censored YT Doc

a reply to: JoeGee

Agree. A very opportune time to get people to take their eye off the ball, and to scurry controversial content under the table when the dirt tries to come back out.

Just like this China - India thing just emerging... pressing buttons under stressful conditions... We have some problems, for sure.

People can be very dumb, and focus on seemingly dumb things. A little devils advocate, your experience doesn’t make you better or supercede their own desires. You yourself maybe considered to be focused on the wrong issues to many. Point of view is very key when discussing morality. Nearly all actions could be viewed a moral, from a certain point of view.


a reply to: AutomateThis1

a reply to: Rob808

What are you talking about? Where did I say that I'm better and all that?

But if you want to play that game and want to argue that pumping young women full of drugs and pimping them out is a good moral I'll let you hang yourself playing the advocate.

Furthermore, if you want to consider extorting small businesses a hefty charge or risk getting their stores destroyed argue the virtues of that.

If you want to argue the killing and torture of individuals who don't play the game, go ahead.

Maybe gain some insight before accusing me of placing myself on a pedestal.

a reply to: JoeGee

watching the epic 3.30hr JFK to 911 doco. Nothing new yet, but it joins the dots pretty well.

@25mins it says that U.K. royal Prince Philip’s brother was head of the Nazi SS. Despite having no love for the royals I found it hard to believe this true, yet so well concealed. So after a quick google it appears it was his brother in law, not his brother... ...

That’s pretty concerning! Does this documentarian not really know his subject, or is the ‘in law’ omitted on purpose in order to sensationalise his doc as much as possible. Either way it calls into question everything else in the doc; now I’m wondering to what degree there’s truths, inaccuracies, or omissions. Very sloppy!

Still watching... RE: the LA newspaper ad by Prescott Bush looking for a “Young politician to do despicable things for Cash”... @1hr 2min... for high Nixon apparently applies

C’mon, that can’t be real!!! Surely it was a gag, a piece of daft satire by the newspaper!

@1.36 it’s talking about the party held the night before JFKs assassination attended by the conspirators...

The narrator sites a witness, saying that to she said she bumped into LBJ (Vice Pres at the time) leaving as she entered and he was euphoric... DEFINITION: adjective adjective: euphoric characterized by or feeling intense excitement and happiness. "a euphoric sense of freedom"

Then we hear from the witness, who says that LBJ was angry. That’s kinda the opposite to euphoric! Not trying to trip the narrator up on his vocabulary, but it’s yet another alarm bell. Did he mistakingly use the wrong worked, or does this signal a misreading of events?

The witness goes iron to say quote LBJs words to her “After tomorrow those S.O.B.s will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat, that’s a promise!”

While it does suggest he knows that something will put him in a better position tomorrow, the first part could well be - in fact as shown it does suggest he’s speaking about the SOBs in the party he just stormed out of in anger.

If he just heard that JFK is out of the picture tomorrow and he’ll be president he might be euphoric (if he’s a piece of s***) which is the point the narrator is trying to manufacture. But it doesn’t make sense if as the witness says LBJ was angry as left the party.

@1.46 the narrator says the little girl running in the colour film of JFKs death “Looks directly to where the shot originated and not at the 6th floor on the depository.”

We see a wide shot with dotted lines leading from the girl to the depository building (where Oswald was) and another to the building behind the car where he alleges another shooter was.

Problem is that the girl is look across the street to her right, at the depository. To be looking at the 2nd building shed have to turn and look behind.

This doc is saying plenty of interesting things, but too often the it doesn’t add up within the context of his own doc, let alone with a little research.

Note: not trying to put the OP down, it’s still an interesting watch, but I want to call out the dodgy bits partly in hope that someone will tell me why I’m wrong!